Dear Ari Emanuel: We're All Meeting On The Internet, Come Join Us

from the and-living-and-working-here-too dept

We recently posted about Hollywood super agent Ari Emanuel's ridiculous demands that Google somehow find the magic "stop piracy" button. That story is turning into something much more interesting. The next day, at the same conference, a Google exec, Susan Wojcicki, pointed out the obvious: that Emanuel doesn't know what he's talking about (she used a more diplomatic phrase, noting that he was "misinformed").

I am misinformed about a lot — just ask my wife — but I’m not misinformed about this: One of our last remaining dominant American exports is our creativity, no matter how you define it, either as a story or as an algorithm. There is equal genius behind companies like Apple, Facebook, Amazon and Google as there is behind artists who create stories that resonate around the world. We need to protect America’s intellectual property and Hollywood can’t do it on its own. I understand that the onus is not entirely Google’s, but let’s stop talking at each other and get in a room with all parties to figure this out. To be clear, I don’t want to rehash SOPA as we can all agree that was a reflection of Southern California’s arrogance, and let’s also not pretend that we’re working together on this issue because we have Youtube channels together. This is a larger conversation. It’s time for Hollywood, our government and Silicon Valley to step up and collectively resolve this problem. Let me know where and when and I’ll be there.

Ari

The problem, of course, is that his very premise is wrong. He's taking the position that we need to "protect" first, rather than just fix our business models. This is a very mercantilist viewpoint: where protectionism beats innovation. But we've got centuries of economic proof that that's not how you evolve and it's not how you innovate and compete. What you do is you figure out ways to add value and to embrace new business models. Any effort that starts from the default position that what we need is more "protection" rather than greater innovation is doomed to fail -- because that innovation is an unstoppable train, and the "protection" aspect doesn't work. So if you don't focus on the innovation, then someone else will, and you'll have wasted all your time, effort and money on a "solution" that simply drives your business somewhere else. To the place that has focused on innovation.

But, even worse, is his arrogance in thinking that this is a problem that requires "Hollywood, our government and Silicon Valley to step up and collectively resolve this problem." This is the same thing we've been hearing for months out of Chris Dodd and the Hollywood crew: it's time to get back into the backroom and craft "a deal." That's how they think, but it completely misses the point. This isn't about crafting a backroom deal, it's about recognizing the power of the internet, and the importance of the internet to people.

Every time a Chris Dodd or an Ari Emaneuel suggests a backroom deal between Hollywood, Silicon Valley and the government, he leaves out the people who actually matter: all of us, out here, on the internet.

And, to that point, if he wants to know "where" this larger conversation is happening: it's right here. On the internet. It's on news sites and social media sites. It's on Reddit and Twitter and Facebook. It's here on Techdirt and lots of other blogs. We live on the internet and this conversation has been happening for a decade. Ari and his buddies have always been welcome to join, so it's a bit disingenuous for him to suggest that he'll "be there" when we tell him where "the meeting" is. It's here. It's going on all around you and you've always been welcome to join. But you don't. And, no, I won't even get into the irony of him demanding a "meeting" when Hollywood did absolutely everything to keep the rest of the world out of the backroom meetings that led to SOPA.

Joshua Topolsky, the editor in chief of The Verge -- who challenged Emanuel, and was rudely told to "go sit down" and had Emanuel ask "where do you work?" -- has written his own response, in which he tells Emanuel he works on the internet:

What Ari seems to forget, and what maybe politicians and the film and TV industry seem to forget is the last time piracy was a flashpoint between the entertainment and tech industries, the problem was not solved by sledgehammer legislation. Or takedowns. Or yelling. It was solved by the music industry accepting that their old model was broken, and technologists figuring out a new way to do business. And that gets to the core of this problem for Ari. We didn't go back to the way things were after the RIAA sued college students — the industry changed.

He doesn't want to change his business model, and he will do anything he can to protect it — including altering the basic functionality of the internet. Pirating and Apple's resulting rise in the music business changed that business forever... and diminished its financial footprint. Entrenched companies that owned every part of the food chain suddenly discovered they were just another cog in a big wheel.

Ari doesn't want that anymore than the music industry wanted it, or traditional media wanted it. Ned Ludd and his machine wreckers didn't like change either.

But there is one simple truth that I really believe in, in life or in business: adapt or die.

You want to know where I work Ari? I work on the internet. Welcome aboard.

I'd argue it goes even further than that. We don't just work on the internet. We live and breathe the internet. It is our identity. Emanuel looks at the internet, and he doesn't get it. To him, it's just a version of television that doesn't pay as well, so that's not interesting. In his talk, he repeatedly demanded a business model that pays as well as TV. That's not how this works. Disruptive innovation doesn't wait until you go back and provide the legacy players with a business model that pays just as well as the old business model. That's not disruption. Disruption works because the legacy players are too shortsighted to see the trend lines, and so infatuated with their fat profits that they don't recognize the potential of the new mediums, and only seek to regulate against them becoming too pesky. The train companies pushed for legislation requiring all automobiles be preceded by a person walking on the road waving red flags.

Emanuel is asking for everyone to come up with the next version of red flag laws for the internet. That's not how this works.

If he wanted a real conversation, it wouldn't be focused on the parameters of how do we set up protectionist, mercantilist barriers. It would be on how do we create more value and then monetize that value. And those conversations are happening all the time, all over the internet. He's welcome to join. He's always been welcome to join. But it requires doing a little actual working and living on the internet.

Reader Comments

The problem is those kinds of people have no foresight. Ari is a business man, he makes deals, he talks and he doesn't think that far ahead, because thinking too far ahead is risky business for your income, which is understandable if you want to maintain a business.

Though when opportunity presents itself, why not take advantage of it instead of slinking back in fear that losing control of the content stream may or may not affect your business.

Re: Re: Re:

Also Heinlein: "There has grown in the minds of certain groups in this country the idea that just because a man or corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years, the government and the courts are charged with guaranteeing such a profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary to public interest. This strange doctrine is supported by neither statute or common law. Neither corporations or individuals have the right to come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped, or turned back."

Re: Re:

Re: Re:

No, a better test is to remove old media and abolish copy'right' and see how these businesses perform. I'm willing to take that gamble because I know very well that they will perform just fine, even better, now that they don't have to endure the cost of policing content.

The claim that Youtube and others appreciably benefit from infringement is a lie. The overwhelming majority of their content is non-infringing, sure infringement may temporarily make it through every once in a while but it gets removed. and policing that costs money. Youtube and others would be much better off without IP laws and without the need to police content. They make their money off of non-infringing content, to say otherwise is an obvious lie with no backing whatsoever.

The more you lie the less people will take your pro-IP position seriously. No one, not a single person, including yourself, is fooled by your lies.

Re: Re: Re:

Abolish IP!!! I want IP abolished. Youtube, Megaupload, and others will do just fine. In fact, it was IP laws that wrongfully took down Megaupload for no good reason, without IP laws Megaupload and Veoh (deemed legal) would still be doing just fine.

Re: Re: Re:

"It's greatest power is communication."

I'd go further - its ONLY power is communication. That's literally all it is. These morons just don't like what people are communicating, despite the fact that such communication existed long before Tim Berners-Lee decided to create HTML...

Could you be any more of a broken record or a whiny bitch? If your business models are so great, then people would be using them. But as it is, you can't even find books for your stupid book club from people using your stupid business models. You're a whiny joke, Masnick. It never ceases to amaze me how incredibly biased and prejudiced you are. How you never ever stop whining about any and all facets of IP law. How you can't even admit that this blog is about IP law. Is there even one honest bone in that chubby body of yours? I doubt it. You're fascinating, Mike. But in a bad way.

Re: Re:

Re:

"My business models! My business models!"

Could you be any more of a broken record or a whiny bitch? If your business models are so great, then people would be using them. But as it is, you can't even find books for your stupid book club from people using your stupid business models.

Yes, he truly is - continually whining about how people need to protect his failing business models.

Re: Re:

Re:

"My business models! My business models!"

Could you be any more of a broken record or a whiny bitch? If your business models are so great, then people would be supporting them. But as it is, you can't even get anyone to take a word you say seriously when you start crying about "piracy".

Re:

And yet, your customers and keep on arguing with you.

Just keep your hands over your ears and keep yelling
"I fail because of Pirates!!"

The stone cold truth is, you fail because you ignore opportunities when presented.
You fail because selling one track vs. one album confuses you.
You when other creative ideas are scary. (Remember the DVD carrousel? I would have bought one or made one because I have over 1000 DVD's.)

You fail because you wont engage in meaningful discussion with others. Al you do is yell, my way or the highway!!

Re:

more tech dirt censorship I see... man, so much for being "OPEN" huh...

Could you be any more of a broken record or a whiny bitch? If your business models are so great, then people would be using them. But as it is, you can't even find books for your stupid book club from people using your stupid business models. You're a whiny joke, Masnick. It never ceases to amaze me how incredibly biased and prejudiced you are. How you never ever stop whining about any and all facets of IP law. How you can't even admit that this blog is about IP law. Is there even one honest bone in that chubby body of yours? I doubt it. You're fascinating, Mike. But in a bad way.

Re:

What people forget is that America isn't a democracy, its a republic. Embracing the internet and letting each person have their say is a step towards true democracy (Or mob rule, technically one and the same). Unfortunately this is not compatible with America's political system.

Re: Re: He's not getting the message.

No, there is not *equal* genius at Google, Apple, Amazon, etc.

This guy is beyond arrogant if he thinks Hollywood's creative "genius" is equal to Silicon Valley's. He has no idea what it takes to do what the tech industry has done over the last 40 years; advances in technology have completely changed our lives, the entertainment industry hasn't even come close to having that kind of impact, and they have fought it every step of the way. This parasite isn't even fit to benefit from their innovations.

"If he wanted a real conversation, it wouldn't be focused on the parameters of how do we set up protectionist, mercantilist barriers. It would be on how do we create more value and then monetize that value."

The problem? Nobody is showing more value.

You can't have that discussion until you have a path forward. Thrashing around randomly hoping for someone to pay the bills isn't a way forward.

Re:

You are not going to find a way forward if you say the way forward is more value for "me". The internet does produce more value. It is spread around to a greater number of people so it looks smaller but in aggregate it is greater than what we had.

Re:

The real problem is what you define as "real value", I see people being able to flourish and live perfectly good lifes producing things at a fraction of what the supposed "creative industry" does, maybe is just me but that doesn't seem to be sustainable even with monopoly status. Deflation is a real word among economic scholars, it happens to every single industry and it is the market adjusting itself, in the past it happen suddenly and people saw that as bad since it brought severe consequences to those unprepared and those same bad things will happen again to any industry that don't want to see the signs on the wall, it is coming adapt or die, no government will help you because no government can, nobody can, learn to do more with less of face the very real possibility of tremendous hardship in your future.

Every single part of society is today passing for a period of adjustment, nobody can afford healthcare except the super rich and even they would have a hard time paying for the costs of it, food is getting pricier, jobs are getting scarce, economic growth is not sustainable at the actual rates but somehow piracy is what will bring the industry down?

Don't Shoot the Messenger

How is it not painfully obvious to all parties involved that Google should have no obligation to regulate its results. Google is like a vendor in a city who sells maps of the city and all the destinations located within its borders. This vendor has no legal or moral obligation to ensure the things happening at all the sites shown on the map are legal. Nor should they be legally compelled to remove any POI just because someone dislikes it.
This whole arguement is absurd. The entertainment industry cannot effectively curb the piracy industry so they are trying to make someone else do it for them. Those lazy jerkoffs best redirect that energy at the "pirate ships" themselves rather than the maker of sea maps (regardless of any pending industry paradigm shift).

Re: Don't Shoot the Messenger

I think there's another analogy that fits Ari's side more closely, although it took me a while to come up with it.

I took the "roads" analogy literally, and thought of the DOT, which regulates private activity on the roads. But that's no good, because Google is not a regulatory agency in any sense.

So what's an example of a private entity--a carrier, if you will--that has legal requirements with regard to the content that it carries? Well, you could argue that UPS is legally required to report contraband if it becomes aware of it, right? Granted, UPS is a carrier, and Google is technically a directory, but I think that line gets a bit blurred on the Internet.

Now, of course, we're back to the child porn analogy, and Mike's response is sound. I think the whole, "roads" analogy is flawed, though, and I don't blame Ari for seeing it differently than we do.

lets just make it perfectly clear for him them.

Hi ari, random netizen here. Note, i'm one of those cord cutters that don't exist, my whole family is, and i'm teaching my parents and grandparents how. My kids will never be customers of yours, except for data access, their data will be proxied and encrypted, and you'll never know what they're pirating.

So here it is, heres how we move forward. Fuck you and your business models, and your partners. You legacy pricks have had your day and it is done. We will piss on your graves, and never notice any lack. a future without you looks bright and wonderful.

Cheerfully, and with condolences, Fuck off, forever. Bow out gracefully and stop fucking things up on your way off the planet.

'it requires doing a little actual working and living on the internet' as well as an understanding of how it works and why it works, along with the acceptance that it is so good at what it does, then perhaps some progress will be made!

Please don't call that chum to the interwebz there are a lot of trolls already.

There is nothing to "fix", there are no laws that can stop piracy or even reduce it, unless people are willing to go back where there was no computers in the world, people don't need the internet to pirate anything that is the first mistake, the second is assuming it is bad, when he can't prove it and will never be able to prove it, it can be bad in some circumstances and it can be very good in others.

Anyways who cares what a monopolist says he will call everybody and their dogs thieves is his job, is what he does he won't change people will change it for him though.

Re:

>Please don't call that chum to the interwebz there are a lot of trolls already.

Ah, but think: trolls loves them their internet, and they love mocking people. So here we have a person who wants to mess with the internet, and makes it really easy to mock him... they'd eat him alive.

"There is equal genius behind companies like Apple, Facebook, Amazon and Google as there is behind artists who create stories that resonate around the world."

A: You don't speak for artists. Let them speak for themselves.

B: You claim that artists have equal genius as the tech community yet you doubt that they have enough genius to do without government assistance in the form of IP laws. I agree that artists have equal genius and they are intelligent enough to do without IP laws. Abolish IP laws.

"We need to protect America’s intellectual property"

Protect it from what? Protect it from being deleted? Protect it from being burned? Oh, wait, protect it from being copied? That's not protecting it, that's restricting it.

Protect it from whom? The general public? The public that laws should seek to serve? If the public doesn't want it protected from them then perhaps the laws should reflect that.

"and Hollywood can’t do it on its own."

So you admit that this isn't about the interests of the public but it's about the interests of monopolists. It's about the interests of Hollywood.

stop helping.

Mike.

Some times you are so ridiculous. This is actually a good thing for "our" side. mocking people doesn't help. This is just another example of how you make it harder to have serious issues addressed. You now so snotty no one but the converted will listen to you, and you turn a lot of people off. You've become a liability.

I used to really like your writings, but now every time something from you comes across my radar I end up cringing and just wishing you would "stop helping"

Re: stop helping.

He doesn't want to change his business model, and he will do anything he can to protect it.

Morpheus Techdirt: Look around you, what do you see? The very minds of the people we're trying to save. But until we do, they are still a part of that system, and that makes them our enemy. And some of them are so inert, so hopelessly dependent on the system, that they will fight to protect it. Were you listening to me? Or were you looking at the woman on the website?

Neo Netizen: I was—

Morpheus Techdirt: Look again.

Neo Netizen: Wha?!

Morpheus Techdirt: Freeze it.

Neo Netizen: This isn't...?

Morpheus Techdirt: No. This is another training program, designed to teach you one thing. If you aren't one of us, you're one of them.

Neo Netizen: Who are they?

Morpheus Techdirt: Copyright maximalists. They can push their agenda onto or through anyone still hardwired to their system. That means that anyone we haven't convinced is potentially a maximalist. In America, they are holding all they keys and they are guarding all the doors. But sooner or later, someone is going to have to fight them.

Neo Netizen: Someone?

Morpheus Techdirt: I won't lie to you, Netizen. Everyone who has stood their ground, everyone who has fought a maximalist has been bankrupted. But where they failed, you will succeed.

Neo Netizen: Why?

Morpheus Netizen: I've seen a maximalist sue for billions, I've seen people empty entire lifetime savings at them and hit nothing but air. But their strength and their speed are both based in a world built on rules. Because of that, they will never be as strong or as fast as you can be.

Neo Netizen: What are you trying to tell me? That I can dodge takedowns?

Morpheus Techdirt: No, Netizen. What I'm saying is that when you're ready, you won't have to.

Wheat and chaff

Ari doesn't want to lose his album sales.
He stated the ratio between today's income and an income based on pay per view is 100 to 40. He wants to get paid for the chaff like they are receiving today just like the records companies complained about not being able to force us to buy their chaff filler tracks

TOO COMPLICATED FOR GOOGLE???

I thought it was funny when the female Google rep said at D10 that tracking who owns what copyright on the Internet was "too complicated for Google".

I didn't think anything was too complicated for Google!

I agree with what Ari Emmanuel had to say because he represents artists. Let me repeat that. Ari Emmanuel represents artists. Not techies, not Silicon Valley... not anyone else. And this article is clearly written to one and only one audience: techies. While the 'geeks' are inventing the future, the artistic talent have to be able to make a living and feed themselves—today! You need to watch TV today. You need to go to the movies when you want to. You will not be content to wait until a sufficient business model has emerged to see your favourite flick.

I love technology and innovation as much as anyone else. However, technology which allows widespread access to illegal content has to be brought to heel. Google doesn't care about content creators. They benefit from creators' content being freely available on the Internet, whether legally or illegally whereas the creators do not. Google owns the World's biggest and second biggest search engines. Anyone who believes that Google cannot make a difference in the fight against online piracy is kidding themselves.

Re: TOO COMPLICATED FOR GOOGLE???

I agree with what Ari Emmanuel had to say because he represents artists.

Better to form your opinions on the basis of evidence and logic.

the artistic talent have to be able to make a living and feed themselves—today!

They can get ordinary jobs like everyone else - no one has the right to make a living in a particular way.

You need to go to the movies when you want to. You will not be content to wait until a sufficient business model has emerged to see your favourite flick.

No I don't need any of that - if I want it then there are mechanisms now in place to fund it upfront. I am very willing to donate generously to any project that aims to create new content for unencumbered distribution.

However, technology which allows widespread access to illegal content
It is only illegal because of a set of antiquated laws that were built around the technology of 300 years ago. They make as much sense as the red flag act.

has to be brought to heel.

Sorry - it cannot be "brought to heel" without crippling the technology in ways that will create collateral damage in much more important industries.

Anyone who believes that Google cannot make a difference in the fight against online piracy is kidding themselves.

Anyone who believes that they could do it without damaging themselves and the other 99% of the economy that uses their service it is a fool and anyone who believes that the collateral damage is acceptable is selfish beyond belief.

Re: TOO COMPLICATED FOR GOOGLE???

"Anyone who believes that Google cannot make a difference in the fight against online piracy is kidding themselves."

Oh they can, the question is...should they? Ari dashed to pieces the street analogy, saying it was "bad." However, that was it, he didn't explain why it was a bad analogy, therefore the analogy still stands for Google.

Besides, they've given the RIAA tools to combat piracy, yet they're either too lazy or too stupid to use them.

The U.S. does not have a monopoly on creativity

"One of our last remaining dominant American exports is our creativity."

This may be, but it's not because people in the U.S. are any more creative than people elsewhere in the world. It's because the U.S. is losing its other exports. As the tech playing field levels, the U.S. can compete or it can lose.

In Europe the debate is being followed with both interest and concern. Concern over things like ACTA, which are negotiated in secret upon the US's request and the 'external experts', according to released documents through an 'Law on Public Administration'-request, were just Hollywood and Silicon Valley representatives. Concern over things like CISPA, which obliges companies in the US to give private data to the US government on request - but that would then include possibly European data due to the presence of a lot of the bigger servers in the US.
Concern because the US keeps on trying to push laws through the system which the most in Europe view as trying to keep aging business models (especially of the music- and movie-industries) intact - which isn't appreciated no respected.
Interest because the US people have shown to resist to laws that just fit fine in Orwell's 1984. Why would this affect Europe? Our politicians want to follow in a lot of cases the practices of the US, forgetting the differences that there are between especially mainland Europe and the US.

The impossibility of control

The basic problem is that people like Ari think there are only two kinds of consumers, "pirates" and honest, paying folk. But the reality is that the vast majority of people belong in a grey area in the middle: they're willing to do the right thing, but first and foremost they want convenience.

The dilemma is that the harder they try to make "piracy" by using technology, the less convenient honesty becomes, so they end up driving more people to copyright infringement.

Furthermore, their goal is quixotic: unless they are willing to just not release creative content to the public, eventually a digital copy will be made, and then it's game over. As long as there is just a single "pirate" remaining, all the people annoyed by inconvenience will end up not paying.

Trying to vilify this behavior will have no impact.

Hollywood can either accept this fairly simple reality and try accomodate it, or continue trying to pretend it is otherwise, and therefore continue alienating their customers and making themselves look like the Bad Guys in all this.